Most non-totalitarian political systems have developed parties so if one somehow disestablished the ones we have, something similar would probably take its place.
What specifically do you have in mind? Removing the state level legal frameworks? Possible a good idea.
I guess what I mean by that is, would you consider Singapore totalitarian? It has some totalitarian aspects, but it seems quite responsive to feedback and the ruling party tends to absorb and respond to criticism before letting other parties take root. At least from what I’ve read about the place; I’ve never been there.
Nor did I claim that it is. I’ve vacationed in Singapore and really like the place. They have a great historical museum that traces its development from a mud flat to the the place the invented “congestion pricing!” :) And built by immigrants.
The point is that parties do develop and are not just a strange weakness of the US Constitution which does in some sense presume that they will not exist.
I do think that some sort of “brush-clearing” would be necessary.
But beyond that, we’d have to have a serious conversation about how to actually work them into the constitutional structure. Like, we know well enough how to do multiparty parliamentarism. But how do we deal with parties coordinating across the other 3 branches?
The Missouri Plan does point towards possible answers. Missouri sought to account for conflicts between the entrenched bureaucracy and deleterious populism by setting up a 3+3 board for approving nominees to the state SC: three appointees from the Governor, and three from the state bar. It was so successful, it was copied by most of the other states!
Perhaps a “parties as fourth branch”-focused amendment might say something like, “any deliberative body answering major questions must feature (some Missouri-Plan-related formula for representation)”.
Why not chuck the Constitution and start over? It was written for a totally different time. They did not foresee political parties and thought that power would exist at the state level. They devised a system of checks and balances to make it difficult for the federal government to pass laws. This has resulted in frustration with the system and a desire by many to ignore it - as we are seeing now with Musk and Project 2025.
People haven't wanted to call for a Constitutional Convention because they are scared of what might result. I think it would make sense to have various political groups work on a new constitution before calling for a convention. Once there was a document that most people agreed with there could be a constitutional convention to adopt it. This assumes that everyone works in good faith and that the convention isn't hijacked with a different constitution formulated in secret.
I think a new system could have the country split into different sections based on geography and political beliefs. Each section would handle it's own local laws and tax collection. There would be free trade and travel across the sections, similar to how there is in the EuroZone. Programs like defense, Social Security, and Medicare could continue on a national level, though I guess there might be ways to opt out of some of them.
That’s a serious constitutional question! I’m not entirely sure. But we have to start designing the system with regard to how parties work, and towards preventing them from taking over.
I'm more thinking in terms of some sort of way of setting up an institution that shapes how parties operate within and across the government.
Like, you know how Switzerland has a 7-person executive council instead of a powerful president or PM? And the politics are delicately balanced because of it.
Another idea that's gained some traction recently is to adopt the informal custom of "shadow cabinets".
I haven't yet settled on some "one big idea", but I think the big key is that we have to remember that we can't just "assume a can opener" by assuming we've already magically fixed the Constitution's well-known problems. The reform would have to be something that puts a big fat roadblock in front of parties' cooperating across the other branches. Something that works to break down concentrations of power and foment disagreement within parties.
Most non-totalitarian political systems have developed parties so if one somehow disestablished the ones we have, something similar would probably take its place.
What specifically do you have in mind? Removing the state level legal frameworks? Possible a good idea.
Doesn’t Singapore basically only have one party yet remains accountable to the people?
Even they work pretty hard to suppress other parties. But the conversation was not exactly about accountability, anyway.
I guess what I mean by that is, would you consider Singapore totalitarian? It has some totalitarian aspects, but it seems quite responsive to feedback and the ruling party tends to absorb and respond to criticism before letting other parties take root. At least from what I’ve read about the place; I’ve never been there.
Nor did I claim that it is. I’ve vacationed in Singapore and really like the place. They have a great historical museum that traces its development from a mud flat to the the place the invented “congestion pricing!” :) And built by immigrants.
The point is that parties do develop and are not just a strange weakness of the US Constitution which does in some sense presume that they will not exist.
I do think that some sort of “brush-clearing” would be necessary.
But beyond that, we’d have to have a serious conversation about how to actually work them into the constitutional structure. Like, we know well enough how to do multiparty parliamentarism. But how do we deal with parties coordinating across the other 3 branches?
The Missouri Plan does point towards possible answers. Missouri sought to account for conflicts between the entrenched bureaucracy and deleterious populism by setting up a 3+3 board for approving nominees to the state SC: three appointees from the Governor, and three from the state bar. It was so successful, it was copied by most of the other states!
Perhaps a “parties as fourth branch”-focused amendment might say something like, “any deliberative body answering major questions must feature (some Missouri-Plan-related formula for representation)”.
But I’m open to ideas here.
Why not chuck the Constitution and start over? It was written for a totally different time. They did not foresee political parties and thought that power would exist at the state level. They devised a system of checks and balances to make it difficult for the federal government to pass laws. This has resulted in frustration with the system and a desire by many to ignore it - as we are seeing now with Musk and Project 2025.
People haven't wanted to call for a Constitutional Convention because they are scared of what might result. I think it would make sense to have various political groups work on a new constitution before calling for a convention. Once there was a document that most people agreed with there could be a constitutional convention to adopt it. This assumes that everyone works in good faith and that the convention isn't hijacked with a different constitution formulated in secret.
I think a new system could have the country split into different sections based on geography and political beliefs. Each section would handle it's own local laws and tax collection. There would be free trade and travel across the sections, similar to how there is in the EuroZone. Programs like defense, Social Security, and Medicare could continue on a national level, though I guess there might be ways to opt out of some of them.
I'm willing to follow your thinking down this path. How do we incorporate these extralegal branches?
That’s a serious constitutional question! I’m not entirely sure. But we have to start designing the system with regard to how parties work, and towards preventing them from taking over.
How about ranked-choice voting as a start?
It's definitely a start.
I'm more thinking in terms of some sort of way of setting up an institution that shapes how parties operate within and across the government.
Like, you know how Switzerland has a 7-person executive council instead of a powerful president or PM? And the politics are delicately balanced because of it.
Another idea that's gained some traction recently is to adopt the informal custom of "shadow cabinets".
I haven't yet settled on some "one big idea", but I think the big key is that we have to remember that we can't just "assume a can opener" by assuming we've already magically fixed the Constitution's well-known problems. The reform would have to be something that puts a big fat roadblock in front of parties' cooperating across the other branches. Something that works to break down concentrations of power and foment disagreement within parties.